Norm Smith Medallist

Reducing interchange makes sense because they don't need 120 bloody rotations. I'm fine with that. But the link with stoppages isn't strong enough for my liking. Standing closer to the ball doesn't take that much more energy and if it does the clubs will just get players fitter to do it.

Coaches know that stoppages are easier to defend, so they create more of them and they congest them.

You can either start pinging players without prior opportunity which is an option, or you force players away from stoppages. People say that's not rewarding getting the ball but you still need to kick goals to win games. Your team would rather have the ball than the other team.

Touched out of bounds being pinged will reduce stoppages but i like the odd contest, it's still part of the game. Just pull players away from it and make the best form of defence be... i don't know, having defenders defend forwards? in the opposition's forward line? 2-3 players from each side inside 50 at all times is a start. As is making the half forwards and half backs start inside the 50 archs whenever theres a stoppage in the centre square. It gets the ball pinging all over the place .

Debutant

Don't think reducing rotations will aid congestion, it will add to more congestion. Coaches will instruct players to put numbers behind the ball and their inability to move faster to the next contest with more fatigue (because of reduced rotations) will force more flooding.

Interchange rotations have little to do with congestion. The dilution of talent in the AFL has seen more average players gets games and their coaches instruct them to scrag, flood and take up space. The rise of basketball presses since 2008 with Clarkson, Lyon & Malthouse's forward press has been the main reason for congestion, not rotations.

If you want to see 100 goal seasons zoning is the way to go. But umpiring is a head **** right now, creating zones would require lines people, and would a FF be allowed to leave the zone for a small period of time?

Make it 16 a side like the old VFA in 1988. You will address two issues, one being congestion, the other being the dilution of talent that has occurred since 2011. Lowering interchange rotations is only going to increase congestion

Premiership Player

If you want to see 100 goal seasons zoning is the way to go. But umpiring is a head **** right now, creating zones would require lines people, and would a FF be allowed to leave the zone for a small period of time?

You would just need to put +1 of the minimum number of players in the zone at all times of you want to rotate your players in and out of the zone.

In terms of umpiring, just use the guy upstairs that does the video goal umpiring to monitor it. It will be hard, but if you make the penalty really heavy for any team breaking this rule - like fresh air shot 30m out directly in front for the opposition team, teams will make a big effort in following this rule.

Hardcore Unconcious Racist

Don't think reducing rotations will aid congestion, it will add to more congestion. Coaches will instruct players to put numbers behind the ball and their inability to move faster to the next contest with more fatigue (because of reduced rotations) will force more flooding.

Interchange rotations have little to do with congestion. The dilution of talent in the AFL has seen more average players gets games and their coaches instruct them to scrag, flood and take up space. The rise of basketball presses since 2008 with Clarkson, Lyon & Malthouse's forward press has been the main reason for congestion, not rotations.

This is an opinion which is often aired but doesn't bare scrutiny.
As players fatigue they make mistakes.
It favors the player with ball who will naturally make a greater effort
And the defenders are just that more likely to mis tackles and not be quite as Alert
As fatigue sets in games open up in all sports
The congestion game requires alert minds
In the right positions countering opposition run and movement. When that drops off the fitter and more skillful should thrive

Agree
I would like to see a definition which does not ask the umpire to interpret intent

Player grabs ball is tackled
1 ball spills
2 ball is trapped
Tackled within 2 seconds of taking possession
1 play on
2 free
Tackled after 2 seconds
1 free
2 free
I don't care whether it's 1,2 or 3 seconds but let's define it
So rather than the umpire interpreting intent, adequate time, a 360 tackle spin - it's a factual decision
When he gets it wrong we and he at least know what he got wrong

Hardcore Unconcious Racist

Don't think reducing rotations will aid congestion, it will add to more congestion. Coaches will instruct players to put numbers behind the ball and their inability to move faster to the next contest with more fatigue (because of reduced rotations) will force more flooding.

Interchange rotations have little to do with congestion. The dilution of talent in the AFL has seen more average players gets games and their coaches instruct them to scrag, flood and take up space. The rise of basketball presses since 2008 with Clarkson, Lyon & Malthouse's forward press has been the main reason for congestion, not rotations.

Club Legend

Limit the interchange won't stop the congestion but it will help it. At the moment the 120 capped interchange allows the rolling maul as players do get plenty of rest. We need to get the interchange back to what it was used for and that wasn't to aid a game plan . Of course coaches are going to jump and down like babies as they won't have as much influence on the game.

Club Legend

Don't think reducing rotations will aid congestion, it will add to more congestion. Coaches will instruct players to put numbers behind the ball and their inability to move faster to the next contest with more fatigue (because of reduced rotations) will force more flooding.
I don't see this. Fatigue will mean that if you want someone to be in the forward line to kick the goals, they will have to stay there. Sending players behind the ball has always been a tactic, but not one for a whole game. The capacity to run from one end to the other at a sprint repeatedly is tied to interchange.
Interchange rotations have little to do with congestion. The dilution of talent in the AFL has seen more average players gets games and their coaches instruct them to scrag, flood and take up space. The rise of basketball presses since 2008 with Clarkson, Lyon & Malthouse's forward press has been the main reason for congestion, not rotations.

Presses are again dependent on interchange, to permit the repeat sprints. The sport that spawned this, basketball, is a mass of interchanges. Talent dilution is less easy to judge. My view is that the modern coaching regimes more than compensate for any such dilution, with a much larger proportion of modern players being good to excellent kicks. When I first started to watch football (sixties) most players were very inaccurate kicks. This is no longer so. They are also far better at handballing to a team mate when under pressure, and with the sticky muck on their hands, they are better marks. Comparison of evasive skills is not possible, because modern players operate in such a congested environment compared to the world Jesaulenko or Baldock worked in.
No amount of instruction to run and occupy space can make an exhausted player do it. Weak teams can do it for a half, but as weariness sets in, talent will out. Interchange allows talent to be nullified.

Club Legend

Sam said on The Footy Show that The AFL were looking at making it so 3 fwd's from each team HAVE to be in their fwd 50 at every stoppage.

Don't think it would work becasue of the following scenario which happens alot.
- Ball is in the fwd pocket of team A and is a ball up.
- Defenders of team A move across the centre of the ground , 60m from the play, while the fwds of team B have to stay in the fwd 50, 90m from the play. Meaning it would be even harder to get the ball clear of your defensive 50 as you would HAVE to run it out and kick over the defenders to even find one of your fwd's.

Cancelled

The 3 forwards I50 idea is a step in the right direction. However, wouldn't it be difficult? Say your forwards move up to a wing, then there's a quick ball up - they have to rush back into their F50 before the ball is bounced..?

But if they iron out the creases it could be a very effective and pleasing, simple rule change.

Club Legend

Each team required to have 3 men in each inside 50 zone would be better. The scenario raised by tigertime is the whole point of the zone idea. Force some players to remain at one end of the ground, so that they can get back to the area before the ball is bounced.

Brownlow Medallist

Seeing stuff in paper on this again.
It is good that it is on the AFL minds because they created the mess by increasing the interchange from 2, to 3 to 4 in very little time (around 1993 to 96 ?) and not long after coaches abused it and turned it into a rotation system instead. Effectively turning it into a game of 22 v 22 with most freshest 18 on field at any one time to keep the race up and down the field. 16 on field is just daft. We had 18 on each team for quite some time and was no issue when I started watching. KB actually come up with an idea never even thought of but so simple should have been on the mind already.
Simply remove the interchange system.

No interchanges just reserve players in case of injuries or concussion.
I think they had this in past before my time but when I first saw footy as a kid it was 2 on interchange but I believe in mid 70's there was no interchange system?

Club Legend

Seeing stuff in paper on this again.
It is good that it is on the AFL minds because they created the mess by increasing the interchange from 2, to 3 to 4 in very little time (around 1993 to 96 ?) and not long after coaches abused it and turned it into a rotation system instead. Effectively turning it into a game of 22 v 22 with most freshest 18 on field at any one time to keep the race up and down the field. 16 on field is just daft. We had 18 on each team for quite some time and was no issue when I started watching. KB actually come up with an idea never even thought of but so simple should have been on the mind already.
Simply remove the interchange system.

No interchanges just reserve players in case of injuries or concussion.
I think they had this in past before my time but when I first saw footy as a kid it was 2 on interchange but I believe in mid 70's there was no interchange system?

All true enough. Interchange was created so that the 19th and 20th men could temporarily replace injured players who were at that time unable to return to the field if they recovered from injuries that caused them to be replaced. It was not intended as a tactical device, and it took a long time for coaches to use it as such. The increase from 2 to 4 occurred almost by stealth, with little discussion or thought.
With professional players now, full time training and coaching, skills and fitness far exceed those of the past, and a simple removal of the interchange would not be enough to restore positional football. Drastic rule changes will be needed if the game is to lose its congestion, and the rules will have to be monitored and amended all of the time as coaches find ways around the regulations to restore the congestion that gives them their beloved control. I don't really have much hope for the game.
Soccer will be the winner as our game loses its spectacle.

TheBrownDog

Seeing stuff in paper on this again.
It is good that it is on the AFL minds because they created the mess by increasing the interchange from 2, to 3 to 4 in very little time (around 1993 to 96 ?) and not long after coaches abused it and turned it into a rotation system instead. Effectively turning it into a game of 22 v 22 with most freshest 18 on field at any one time to keep the race up and down the field. 16 on field is just daft. We had 18 on each team for quite some time and was no issue when I started watching. KB actually come up with an idea never even thought of but so simple should have been on the mind already.
Simply remove the interchange system.

No interchanges just reserve players in case of injuries or concussion.
I think they had this in past before my time but when I first saw footy as a kid it was 2 on interchange but I believe in mid 70's there was no interchange system?

Players before that used to dispose as quickly as possible or they got physically smashed. that doesnt happen now as the violence has been toned down. Now they hold by whatever means until a high rewrd option is available. THAT is the set of the issue. in the past the quick disposal led to a series of unpredicable panic situations. semi professional or sem amateur. I dont think watchers would like that vibe either.

But ffs deal with the issue at the source not try to change peripheral stuff

Its good that the AFL is at least doing trials rather than misinterpreting data

(In any case in the 'good old days' if a team got three goals up they then 'went the boundary line' and neutralised any contest whatsoever)

nah, There is always some good football but as a spectacle it has dropped off as someone that gone week in week out as the late 90s come about. The first sign of it was 1996 with access to 2 more players to make use of via the bench the first regular use of flooding I saw in all my time of watching footy to then. Ultimately the cause of congestion is two more bodies to make use of to freshen up how much run up and down the ground can happen for your 18 on field at the time. There is no co-incidence the first aspect of it started soon after bench jumped to 4.

I do not think they will remove a bench or even cut it back to 2. OH&S craziness will see to it. So looks like they exploring other ideas they may bring about further changes. Instead of fixing the cause they could be adding more problems. I am not totally against the zone ideas but they need to be careful how they go about it.
16 on field is not the answer either.

Club Legend

Vicks Vaporub - works every time. If a game is getting too congested, umpires stop play and run it onto every player's chest. Once this happens once or twice, I bet players/coaches will find a way around it fairly quickly.